The Global Warming Scare Is Most Certainly Overheated
May 11, 2022
By Paul Homewood
Does anyone wonder where all the global warming destruction is? After all, the media are unrelenting in telling us how much climate change caused by man is affecting us. Yet no existential threat has emerged. There’s something off with the story.
The climate alarmists have based their predictions of doom on computer models that have been projecting global temperature increases, the likes of which, they tell us, are unsustainable. We must cut our carbon dioxide emissions, even if (actually, especially if) it hurts developed world economies.
This is the narrative we’re bombarded with on a daily basis. And it’s wrong.
Full story here.
19 Comments
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
It’s all codswallop. Take away the trees, the shrubs and the grasses and the local area warms. Simple as that. The atmosphere very efficiently gathers the warmth and elevates it (convection) so that the molecular density falls away. Radiation progressively takes over from conduction. And of course the vast bulk of the planet experiences temperatures that are suboptimal for photosynthesis most of the time.
The warming meme serves an ideological purpose. It’s the latest religion.
It’s a recipe for misallocation of resources on a grand scale which will lead to impoverishment. And the process is accelerating. This nonsense will have a life. The results are already catastrophic. A delusion of the ‘West’. An opportunity for the ‘East’.
Does anyone wonder where all the global warming destruction is?
Yes, it’s in the crummy climate models that can’t forecast the present.
Modelers can’t even hindcast the past. No model can use Earth’s past natural variability to predict the future. It’s pure guesswork to simulate the ENSO or volcanic activity.
Didn’t stop our chief meteorologist declaring a 50% chance of exceeding the magic 1.5 degree K increase in the next 5 years (according to – guess whom – the BBC) thereby proving his ignorance of global temperatures, their rate of increase and of probabilities all in one sentence.
Over the last 10,000 years temperatures have risen by 1 degree above the mean of 15 degrees and they have fallen by 1 degree below the mean. That is a 2 degree spread. 1750 was the coldest year in 2,500 years . . . the second coldest in 10,000 years. When we compare the Roman Warming Period and The Medieval Warming Period to our current Warming Period . . . we still have 1/2 a degree to rise . . . simple research . . . OH sorry there were no thermostats in either of those periods . . . they precede ‘Recorded History’ . . . ??
https://www.academia.edu/51184433/Climate_Change_For_the_21_st_Century
Every time someone points out that (for instance) children have yet to forget what snow is; we are treated to much scornful huffing and puffing that Climate is a 30 year – or more – issue and that, just because it snowed yet again when MET Office were predicting warmer than usual, in line with all the best manipulated Supercomputers, that is just an odd trivial exception that proves The Settled Science rule.
Along similar lines, pointing out the warmth of the Medieval Warm Period or the 1930s, or on the other hand the dreadful disaster of the Little Ice Age, instantly triggers the (mendacious, fraudulent) claim that just because it might have a tiny bit chilly here and there, this wasn’t a “Global Phenomenon” and can be contemptuously waved away.
So what are we to make of this 2099 globe with a nasty brown scab on its head and deep red inflamation around it, whilst the rest is apparently lighter shades of yellow. That doesn’t look very Global. And surely this should be labelled 2069-2099?
But there is as much evidence that this little globe with a head injury bears even the remotest resemblance to anything in the real world, as there is that a cloth mask will protect you from Covid.
“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
So stated the IPCC’s Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Third Assessment Report (TAR), Chapter 14 (final para., 14.2.2.2), p774.
Well said !!
David V.
Perhaps you underestimate the sciency genius of the Chief Meteorologist.
After all, anyone would understand that it MIGHT exceed 1.5°K.
Or, on the other hand, it might not.
So, that’s 50%. Innit? Simples.
Thanks for the clarification – not really what I understand a 50:50 chance to mean.
David,
I don’t think we are supposed to understand.
1 Corinthians 15:51
(King James Version)
51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed.
Might as well be Climate Psyence’s moto.
Mock not. I’m sure the Chief Metereologist is far more highly regarded by Our Beloved Leaders than all of us lot put together.
Latest from the MET office is that there is a fifty fifty chance the 1.5°C limit will be broken momentarily sometime in the next five years.
No doubt nailed on in the computer.
A computer model of a coin toss?
So that’s what “The Science” is reduced to is it?
I see…
The problem is that we don’t know what the global temperature was in 1850. So half a degree today? WEVE PASSED IT!!! Aargh!
Oops David!!!
Spiked is on-side with a headline piece on Rowlatt today.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/05/11/the-bbcs-climate-fake-news/
I especially liked this paragraph”
“The vast global reduction in natural-disaster deaths – tragically misreported by the BBC – tells an alternative, humanistic story. This is the story of human progress – of global economic development, industrialisation and innovation. This has allowed humanity to liberate itself from the vagaries and cruelties of nature. It is the simple reason why worsening weather does not translate into greater death and destruction. And it is this very progress and liberation that climate alarmists threaten to undo.”
Sooner or later lies, misrepresentations, and exaggerations catch up with you and the bigger they are the harder they fall.
The simple fact is, nothing other than a human with a computer knows or cares if the global average temperature is a bit higher or not. Most animal species have life spans that are far too short to care about a 30 year period, let alone the average during that period – and none at all care about the global average, only a very local temperature. Natural variability is far greater than the slow increase in average temperatures anyway – many species see large swings between generations because their generations are shortlived.
And though our generations are a bit longer lived we have the adaptability, the intelligence and the technology to cope. Humanity is not under threat from any form of climate change which will happen within the lifetime of any one individual — barring, possibly, a nuclear holocaust.
We are currently losing wildlife at a greater rate to the depradations of wind turbines and solar panels than we are to any temperature increase. Ditto for the natural environment generally. And species will follow their food supply and extend their range pole-wards as the climate becomes more benign. And if it becomes too hot in Nice they will move to Paris and in 100 years time will be moving in the opposite direction as the climate changes. Which it will!